Matthew 9:27-31: Two blind men are healed
Hover over the references to see the Biblical text
Matthew 9:27-31
In considering the healing of the two blind men, I think it is helpful to have some idea of the size of Capernaum. As Matthew presents the account, Jesus leaves the house where he has just restored the ruler's daughter to life and walks to another building where he goes indoors. The exact location of those two buildings are not revealed in the text, but based on what is known of Capernaum, it seems likely the walk was under a half mile, although it could have been considerably less.
I base that estimate on the two images below (showing ancient and modern Capernaum), an estimate from Google Maps of 1000 feet for the distance between the two monasteries seen in the "Capernaum today" image (the Franciscan Monastery is on the extreme left, and the Greek Orthodox Monastery is on the right with the red domes). Using those I made an assumption that Capernaum in Jesus' day was roughly square in shape, covering 1000' x 1000'. If Jesus walked from one corner of the town to the other following a zigzag path, he would cover about two-fifths of a mile, which would make my estimate of a half mile walk generous even if the two buildings where at extreme corners of the town.
My only reason for considering the distance walked is that blind men followed Jesus from one location to the other, calling out for mercy as they went. Jesus could have stopped, could have approached the men, but he did not. Instead, he went to the second location and went indoors. Only then were the blind men able to come to him.
This raises two questions:
What Did They Want?
It is also noteworthy in the narrative that the men do not specifically request healing. The healing of the paralytic was reported only a few verses earlier, and may have happened earlier that same day. That was the occasion where Jesus angered the Pharisees by declaring the man's sins were forgiven. Obviously, the blind men's plea for mercy could easily be interpreted as an indirect way of asking for healing, but coupling it with the Messianic title* of "Son of David" puts their request in broader scope than one simply of healing, possibly including a request for the forgiveness of sins. It might be better, however, to limit the range of their request to the temporal rather than the eternal, to a request for mercy to be applied to their daily lives rather than their eternal souls. That context would follow on nicely from the social-restoration theme of verses 18-29, so I'm feeling pretty comfortable about that.
The Role of Faith
Jesus says to the men, “According to your faith let it be done to you” (NIV). However, the word translated according (Κατὰ) can also be translated for the purpose of (see Wikipedia and here, in sermon notes on a church website, listed under P.2.k. but referencing BDAG). Translating the verse as "for the purpose of your faith let it be done to you" completely changes its meaning. With that meaning, it could be understood as something done to build their faith up, but that would make little sense following as it does from Jesus question, "Do you believe I can do this?" On the other hand, translating it as according to your faith and understanding this to mean a measure-for-measure relationship is also difficult to justify.
That tight of a relationship between faith and healing is a part of Word of Faith theology, which teaches the use of "seed verses" and "positive confession" to build faith to the level required for obtaining a miracle. The usual counter to that idea is to point to Jesus' resuscitation miracles with the argument that corpses exhibit no faith. However, the response to that is that Jesus had complete faith, so the corpse's faith was not needed (with the obvious implication that healing is now our ministry, not Jesus', so all requirements for faith are now laid on us). But this is problematic. How can one argue that only Jesus' faith was needed for resuscitation miracles but then demand a measure-for-measure correlation between faith and healing? Lastly, as with the hemorrhaging woman, the healing only came after Jesus announced it, suggesting that Jesus—and not the faith—acquired and/or released the healing. A further issue is that neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever sent a sick person away with instructions to come back when they had more faith. So, while the blind men's faith may have put them in a place to receive healing—because their faith got them in front of Jesus asking him to intervene for them—I see no good exegetical reason to suggest their faith, rather than Jesus, actually produced the healing.
Touching Their Eyes
As my interest in healing is practical (by which I mean I think the Church—including me—should be doing this, not just reading about or talking about it), I would like to comment on the fact that Jesus touched the blind men's eyes. I wish this were a pattern we could follow. However, while he does this here and in Matthew 20:34, Mark 8:23, and John 9:6-7, we are not shown the same pattern in Matthew 12:22, Mark 8:23, and Luke 18:42-43. Having done a little internet searching on the subject, I think I can also assert that there is a lot more written about Jesus making mud with his spit or praying doing a two-stage healing of the blind on other occasions than there is on his touching these two men's eyes. Nonetheless, the detail is given to us and must therefore be important. My conviction is that it is there for both theological and practical instruction. By the latter, I am not suggesting it is prescriptive for any time one prays for blind people (those other verses counter that idea), but simply that we should be open to the idea of laying on of hands when ministering (or attempting to minister in) healing.
* See the article "What does it mean that Jesus is the son of David?" on GotQuestions.com for more on this title.
Matthew 9:27-31
In considering the healing of the two blind men, I think it is helpful to have some idea of the size of Capernaum. As Matthew presents the account, Jesus leaves the house where he has just restored the ruler's daughter to life and walks to another building where he goes indoors. The exact location of those two buildings are not revealed in the text, but based on what is known of Capernaum, it seems likely the walk was under a half mile, although it could have been considerably less.
I base that estimate on the two images below (showing ancient and modern Capernaum), an estimate from Google Maps of 1000 feet for the distance between the two monasteries seen in the "Capernaum today" image (the Franciscan Monastery is on the extreme left, and the Greek Orthodox Monastery is on the right with the red domes). Using those I made an assumption that Capernaum in Jesus' day was roughly square in shape, covering 1000' x 1000'. If Jesus walked from one corner of the town to the other following a zigzag path, he would cover about two-fifths of a mile, which would make my estimate of a half mile walk generous even if the two buildings where at extreme corners of the town.
 |
| Capernaum at the time of Christ (source: "Meditations on Israel") |
 |
| Capernaum today (source: "Meditations on Israel") |
This raises two questions:
- How were blind people able to follow him?
- Why did Jesus do this?
First of all, given that Jesus had just performed two impressive miracles (the second being a resuscitation miracle) we might surmise that he was followed by a boisterous crowd, so the blind men need only follow the noise. That, however, would only get them so far and would definitely not have got them into the house Jesus ultimately entered. So, it is reasonable to assume either that they had a sighted person leading them or that they elicited help for the people around them. I suspect the second option is more likely.
The question of why Jesus would ignore the cries of these two men is more perplexing. I suppose it is possible he could not hear them over the crowd, but I find that suggestion unsatisfying given that Matthew records both the fact that they followed Jesus and the specific words of their cries. While those details could have been reported to Jesus and his disciples after the fact, the very fact that Matthew includes the specifics in the narrative suggests they are important—the Gospels do not contain descriptive language just for the sake of embellishment. As Jesus makes no commentary about having them follow him, my inclination is that Matthew includes the detail to show the men's determination and not because Jesus was modeling some deeper lesson.
What Did They Want?
It is also noteworthy in the narrative that the men do not specifically request healing. The healing of the paralytic was reported only a few verses earlier, and may have happened earlier that same day. That was the occasion where Jesus angered the Pharisees by declaring the man's sins were forgiven. Obviously, the blind men's plea for mercy could easily be interpreted as an indirect way of asking for healing, but coupling it with the Messianic title* of "Son of David" puts their request in broader scope than one simply of healing, possibly including a request for the forgiveness of sins. It might be better, however, to limit the range of their request to the temporal rather than the eternal, to a request for mercy to be applied to their daily lives rather than their eternal souls. That context would follow on nicely from the social-restoration theme of verses 18-29, so I'm feeling pretty comfortable about that.
The Role of Faith
Jesus says to the men, “According to your faith let it be done to you” (NIV). However, the word translated according (Κατὰ) can also be translated for the purpose of (see Wikipedia and here, in sermon notes on a church website, listed under P.2.k. but referencing BDAG). Translating the verse as "for the purpose of your faith let it be done to you" completely changes its meaning. With that meaning, it could be understood as something done to build their faith up, but that would make little sense following as it does from Jesus question, "Do you believe I can do this?" On the other hand, translating it as according to your faith and understanding this to mean a measure-for-measure relationship is also difficult to justify.
That tight of a relationship between faith and healing is a part of Word of Faith theology, which teaches the use of "seed verses" and "positive confession" to build faith to the level required for obtaining a miracle. The usual counter to that idea is to point to Jesus' resuscitation miracles with the argument that corpses exhibit no faith. However, the response to that is that Jesus had complete faith, so the corpse's faith was not needed (with the obvious implication that healing is now our ministry, not Jesus', so all requirements for faith are now laid on us). But this is problematic. How can one argue that only Jesus' faith was needed for resuscitation miracles but then demand a measure-for-measure correlation between faith and healing? Lastly, as with the hemorrhaging woman, the healing only came after Jesus announced it, suggesting that Jesus—and not the faith—acquired and/or released the healing. A further issue is that neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever sent a sick person away with instructions to come back when they had more faith. So, while the blind men's faith may have put them in a place to receive healing—because their faith got them in front of Jesus asking him to intervene for them—I see no good exegetical reason to suggest their faith, rather than Jesus, actually produced the healing.
Touching Their Eyes
As my interest in healing is practical (by which I mean I think the Church—including me—should be doing this, not just reading about or talking about it), I would like to comment on the fact that Jesus touched the blind men's eyes. I wish this were a pattern we could follow. However, while he does this here and in Matthew 20:34, Mark 8:23, and John 9:6-7, we are not shown the same pattern in Matthew 12:22, Mark 8:23, and Luke 18:42-43. Having done a little internet searching on the subject, I think I can also assert that there is a lot more written about Jesus making mud with his spit or praying doing a two-stage healing of the blind on other occasions than there is on his touching these two men's eyes. Nonetheless, the detail is given to us and must therefore be important. My conviction is that it is there for both theological and practical instruction. By the latter, I am not suggesting it is prescriptive for any time one prays for blind people (those other verses counter that idea), but simply that we should be open to the idea of laying on of hands when ministering (or attempting to minister in) healing.
* See the article "What does it mean that Jesus is the son of David?" on GotQuestions.com for more on this title.
You are very welcome, uniquestories. If you have an active interest in healing, may I suggest watching some of the videos on the "How To" page of this blog.
ReplyDelete